Texel has been seen to work when it comes to larger cats. Note the 1994 Ronde om Texel result by Reg White on a Firebird.

Cheshirecatman

Texcel of the two - SCHRS has anomolies and a two tier system that biases boats MEASURED before a certain date with an advantageous rating against those built before that date but not rated ,2007 I think is said date (basically schrs assumes all boats MEASURED after "2007" have their waterline equal to overall length !!!- the shorter the waterline length the better the rating when its measured ) , it also heavily handicaps solo sailers against two up .

TEXCEL MEASURES ALL BOATS THE SAME WAY .

Both systems are inheritantly flawed in the assumption that all cat sailers weigh 75 kgs .

yes you guessed it I'm a 118kgs solo sailor , with a boat built built pre 2007 with a significantly shorter waterline , but not MEASURED pre 2007 , that gets humped on hcap regularily !!

Dont worry about schrs and ISAF - isaf dont really have anything to do with running of schrs other than providing an umbrella.

I'll dig my hole now and batten down for flak .

"The issue remains; unless someone is interested enough to put together something for consideration, or step up and helm the effort to keep multihull Portsmouth alive, or attend an event where handicapping is needed, occasional virtual conversations like this one are kind of pointless. We've been exactly here many times before and nothing has changed. Move the ball forward, I dare you."

How, exactly, do you move the ball forward? You refer to "something" and "somebody". I'm "somebody" what is the "something" you refer to?

Get on the committee. Write a proposal backed up with research. Open it for discussion, call it to motion and vote.

Personally I think if we see the change to a Texel type handicap, we're going to end up changing everything but with the same racing result. We're handicap racing and the actual numbers, though derived by different methods, are very similar.

"research"? There's the problem.

I've no objection to serving on a committee, any committee. But researching this issue is like trying to prove a negative. It is pointless.

There is great popular dissatisfaction with the portsmouth system. The question, imo, should be how great is the dissatisfaction?

My solution is a poplular vote (paid members of USS only) answering the question should the portsmouth system be replaced? And with what?

My vote would be yes and with Texel. Were I to become a member of the MHC that is the objective I would work toward.

Does anyone agree with me?

The system must be FAIR, TRANSPARENT and TIMELY.

Changing systems, I agree won't change FAIR... for the existing ratings... BUT the Nacra F20 could race tommorow in the handicap events of consequence if we used a measurement system.

Change to Measurement system would be more transparent and more timely and that is the major point.

Some important events have already switched to SCHRS. Switching the qualifiers over to measurement will continue the process.


Would anyone like to edit a draft of a white paper to the mulithull council supporting a proposal to recommend to the appropriate USSA commmittes a switch from USPN to SCHRS for the Area Qualifiers? PM me!

I think a number of regular readers will be aware with your gripe with regard to SCHRS. I suspect one reason for the change was to facilitate measurement, made possible by the contemporary vertical or swept back bow designs. I am sure Simon will have his own comments to make on this.
Your boat was not designed to be raced in the configuration as sailed so you cannot expect it to be optimised. Do you really think your gripe is going to help progress cat sailing?
If you need to address your handicap issues for your club sailing environment see your club sailing committee may be able to help. This situation is not unique and has been addressed elsewhere, but do not expect sympathy from fleets outside your local club.
My experience with SCHRS has shown minor issues with dated boats at the small end of the scale as well as some highly developed boats at the larger end. However on balance it has proven to be the fairest and most easily managed system as applied.
There may be some issues with crew weight, but in general racing sailors choose boats on which they can compete competitively.
There are some who would seem to want to go down the path of finding a system to cover all eventualities. Get real. Who in their right mind wants or would be prepared to implement and maintain such a system?
If you want to level the playing field go one-design, get them to implement a set crew weight then diet or bulk up to suit.

Cheshirecatman

Is the measurement formula for the different systems published?

If not, how does a home built boat get a rating?

They pay a certified measurer and are given a certificate with an approved rating.

Ugh! How much does that cost?!

Is the formula published?

Visit http://www.schrs.com/

Cheshirecatman

Thanks Cheshire - thats what I needed to know. Right there under the "System" link.

Creation of my cheater boat design has officially begun

$ is between you and the measurer

Both Texel and SCHRS have extensive descriptions and formulas on their web sites. (transparent)
Sailwave has a ratings calculator built in for SCHRS and Texel has a spreadsheet calculator.

let me throw out another benefit that Portsmouth has over a measurement based system.

Take the Hobie 16 and the F16. There is a philosophical class difference that affects the boat speed and the related rating (no, I'm not talking about the spinnaker). The Hobie 16 sail plan and sail material does not evolve (mostly) and is not open to different sail manufacturers. The F16 on the other hand does and is. F18 has seen quite an evolution in sails and speed potential. Portsmouth can handle this difference readily. A measurement system cannot without manual manipulation.

I see that as potential shenanigans not as a benefit. The technology evolution must be accounted for in the formula, not some fudge factor extracted from thin data.

Gawd! Thanks for the reminder as to why handicap racing is bull$hit racing. Long live OD/Formula! Race straight up and F@#$ all the rest!

Enjoy your quest... Ding out!

Ok...but how do you put a formula in place to figure out the impact of a better sailplan as it evolves?

Jake

The formula makers can simply add another term to the formula with a factor for developmental boats. It will be a KNOWN factor applied to all developmental boats ...

As Ding commented... far better then the scarce data we have available or (unlikely... the judgment of the PN committee).

Remember... if the F16's (and F18's) made a huge leap in sail development. tomorrow... suggesting that the boat was now rating 62.0 from 63.0.... The rating would change in the spring to 62.75... in 2012... it would move 25% of the difference (.75) down again.... One day some day... the rating would be accurate...

Meanwhile... the racing community would deal with the F16 and F18 classes and be pissed off.... never good for getting people to come out and go racing. If there is no racing... then there is no data... and the adjustment process stops.

Remember the Nacra 5.5uni started out rating slower then the Hobie 17 74.0.... eventually the rating landed at close to 70.0 after 5 years.....

Fortunately, development is not so dramatic. Portsmouth will work well when you have tons of data with many secondary yardstick boats in the race. This is not reality.

To me, the best system would be one that would use fewer volunteer hours to implement. Let's face it, we don't have the enthusiastic volunteer pool that we once had. No one wants to measure boats when they could be drinking rum in the club.

Luckily for us here in Area G, most boats race in their one-design configuration.

The "something" is somewhere beyond a periodic post about ratings dissatisfaction. As you can see from this thread, every handicap system has vocal detractors for one reason or another. None of the discussion ever seems to yield change. As Jake suggests, you'll have to bring an idea with some rationale forward for discussion by the entity that can implement it. In this case, if the objective is to see a different system used for scoring Area events, then you'll need to get the Multihull Championship Chairman on-board. That might mean providing some information as to why the change is needed, what you're proposing to change to, and a demonstration of an understanding about who will be affected and how.

Mark has articulated well, IMO, what we would want of any handicap system - fair and timely are more important to me than transparency, but I get where he's coming from.

Most of the above has been talked about at length.

Crew weight. For resons explained at length, we use the average height and weight, I think from the WHO via the ISAF technical Director. We have discussed adding "crew weight factors" but it is just too complex; can you DEFINE the shape of the average Sailor ? F16 sailor (Nope; from about 65kg to around 110!!); Ditto A class; F18; tornado etc... Non starter

The person with the gripe on the measuring break ws told to get his boat measured; not our problem if that does not happen. Move on.

SCHRS and TEXEL measure some items slightly differently; TEXEL reps and Members of the SCHRS managment group are discussing this and there MAY be some combining / sharing of measuring methods.